Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 4, 2013 1:00am-1:31am PDT

1:00 am
thank you very much >> thank you. >> just waiting for the clock. i'm ray. i've known the lady for a number of years and i think you know this is a contentious issue you have a notice of the violation and this has gone on and a lot of the allegations and charges. i was a left hand insurance broker in the state of hawaii and i taught the insurance. and basically, we're looking at
1:01 am
an issue of liability. she has been told a lot of things and at this point, i think she is trying to get the people to be certified and they do the work in accordance with state certification. and there's a fence on her property which is adjacent to the building which my understanding has to be moved. so there some question about it they move the fence will they put it back in the same condition. what we have here is she's got to the point she's uncertain as to whether or not the person who is going to do work with her and
1:02 am
make sure the contractor is properly insured for workers' compensation and any accident insurance and willing to state that any damage done to her property in the completion of work will be paid. this looks like a kind of case that will end up in court. now we've got a problem with the fence. and an issue with the paint on her property is a red herring. if you have a complaint you file it with the building inspection and they took itor but she is doing what any conscious person would do she wants to make sure
1:03 am
their properly left hand and i will - she will be left whole at the end of the work >> any other public comment? seeing none none. commissioner >> this is sounding complicated but it's really the notation o notice of the violation. i would suggest the thing we can do is actually vote on this and take a position. i will do that here in making a motion that we uphold the abatement and hold it for thirty days with the legal permitting. >> i second that. >> a motion and a second to hold the abatement and hold it
1:04 am
for thirty days. >> thirty days enough time for the next meeting? we can say thirty days or the day of the next meeting which is june 19th. >> it's taking a position we've upholdi upholding this. >> and we're allowing them to complete the work and only the fees would apply. >> i was saying there might not be enough time? >> 60 days i all the time my motion. >> this body does not have the power to order my client to do something that's impossible to
1:05 am
go on the neighbors property under the threat of trespass to perform any work. so where we were last time we were going to dismiss the notice of violation. if we couldn't - >> the violation exists. >> just so the body knows i want to make it clear if there's that's where we're going with this thing my client strongly opposes it as being illegal. and the city can't require my client to go on the neighbors property to mitigate a violation especially, when the whole reason we're here as you've heard testimony is that the
1:06 am
place where the violation exists is on a neighboring property and that's where the violation should be directed. this has been going on for 15 years. this body does not have the power to require my client that's both legally and file number - physically impossible >> i do believe we have the authority to uphold the violation and i suggest 60 days rather than thirty and i suggest we vote. >> there a role call vote on the motion?
1:07 am
(calling names) the motion carries 5 to 2. thank you. >> next item on the agenda. >> next item is item d continue to have the abatement order of record appellant and action requested that the order be reversed. >> as our staff report indicated this is a four unit building and the question of the violation was issued back in
1:08 am
2004 deals with the stairs at the rear of the structure. so here's an area of the photograph of the property in question. looking at the northerly direction. i'm going to show you the side profile of that. we're talking about this area right here. i have in your staff report colored photographs taken of the area in question. the stairs look the same way there was a recent inspections and in attendance was the
1:09 am
housing inspector annie cars and chief - excuse me. building inspector patrick was there and you see from your staff report this permit was filed in 2005. it expired it was obviously more than 50 percent here we have dry rot and we have a situation where it's unsafe and so then we have a notice of violation this is an occupied property and we have to take out the appropriate
1:10 am
permits and do the work that is required as we'll be seeing later on in the agenda. to e so staff doesn't believe one that the assessments should be excused and we're going in compliance with this item. any questions? >> has - since this came up has there been a new permit applied for. >> i checked it yesterday and didn't see a permit that addresses this based upon the new notice of violation that was issued on the basis of the inspection that it's also
1:11 am
documented in your report and thank you. >> thank you. >> it the appellant here? >> yes. >> 7 minutes. >> thank you very much. i'm richard thomas i have something to pass out to you i have to give this to the secretary first. a resident response that i had in writing. my son tense there was an inspection and in that final
1:12 am
inspection i didn't have a property job card. i hope you can hear me and the inspector released i didn't have a card and it's lost and i asked for another one the job was done on the deck and that being said when i saw that this was the point of contention - the led
1:13 am
gesture shows the we can of the 12 through the 17 i spent seven hundred and 63 dollars for a carpenter basically to take care of all the items on the desk. it basically says here that in his words he was there. everything was fine, and that inspector acknowledged that the drop card was lost. my anticipation was that the drop card was going to be found and signed off by the inspector and having heard from no one 2012 this item had been taken
1:14 am
care of itself. i see entries by inspector lopez and he tried to call me. left a voicemail. i have a sheet here i hope you have the city's report and it's very unusual >> but it says made several calls but he only left a message. there's two different dates here and the city's work product and it says the problem is your permit which will end in 125 expired in april 5, 2009, the
1:15 am
same year as the entries. and another entry says that permit expired on april 120th century. you can't walk away from plus there's a final warning letter that was apparently sent to me 2009 and all the documents you've been given on this matter there's no final warning letter. so i went to the department and asked for all the paperwork that related to this matter and i was given one page. you've got it and this doesn't look like the compliant data sheet that goes on and on but
1:16 am
how this information was presented to me. this wasn't anything that was made up. and basically consistent with the timeframe. but mr. cars i've learned to respect very much he said this was open i voluntarily went out and got a permit it costs one dollar. here's the last page i got a permit for one dollar it cost me $220 to get the permit for one dollar. okay. so it's over. when - the day after christmas i think so much of the building department i'm waiting in my car 4 hours.
1:17 am
by 1230 nobody comes out and they finally said this is not what we want. you only have to bring the code up to 2005. the handrail was only on one side. here's the steps handrail on one side. on this side doesn't need to have a handrail but didn't need those pickets every in our inches on that side >> this is a younger man who can't think back about the code to 2005 so he writes me up.
1:18 am
the pictures i see today before i are the work in process. all you see is redwood. i've hired an engineer that was required to do in the first 10 days at the cost of $1,200 and in so doing came up with all the plans that's been satisfied with the city. i've written a letter to the copy of the building permit is right here. here's the card and the stack of stuff i have until january 20th century of 2014 to finish the job >> thank you very much. >> can i ask a question? >> so how much time do you need to complete the job, work days?
1:19 am
>> that's a wonderful question and i brought the situation up to district inspector the head, head inspector i think his name is - >> how much time thirty days, 60 days? >> thank you. i need 90 days. >> thank you. >> as i previously said we've been at this since the violation that was written in 200 had the permit expired. the work was not completed at that time. as you can see the permit
1:20 am
expired. he then took out another permit in january of this year but subsequent to that chief inspector was out there and they sited substantial problems so thank you for asking that question commissioner how long does it take to repair the stair structure we believe very strongly assessments of costs should be required. he just read you comments in the data sheet but this is the issue before you he didn't finish it and then he went ahead and did the work and didn't do the appropriate work and the building inspector had to go out
1:21 am
and do more work. that's what i need you to understand. >> good morning commissioners chief building inspector patr k patrick. first of all, we've glad that the gentleman had the necessary permit. when i went out there i believe it was about the middle of january i was concerned with safety because the desk was severely dry roted. to address the issues for people
1:22 am
using that desk. therefore we put timelines on it. i went so far as to require barricading of the desk until the necessary repairs could be made. so modern code compliance it was a life safety issue at the time, i was there >> do you know if it's still that way? >> we have issued a second violation it should be scheduled for a director's hearing at our department and we're taking steps to follow up on enforcement since we haven't signed off the work at this point. >> okay thank you.
1:23 am
>> thank you. the appellant want to come for 3 more minutes? thank you the engineer >> came up with plans that require much of the desk to be basically be laterally enforced interest it's two-story and goes down to a ground floor. if you look at the architects plans the lateral supports has to be the work of a master carpenter. there's no doubt about it and it has to make sure that none of the tenants have access to it. the work i've been doing is work i can do on all the rails to
1:24 am
make sure their strong and nothing structurally bad about the dry rot. the dry rot is being taken care of. but it's those cross pieces i can show you - right here. you'll be happy to know that both the contractor and the engineer have been to the property and have seen it and are in agreement as to how to build this. i want to reference the letter that i wrote to commissioner patrick. because i like to stay in touch with the inspectors and tell them what's going on.
1:25 am
and the letter that i have that i gave to you on february 21st basically says this is the fellow i want to do the job. he's the licenseed guy and his mom's in a comma and i need more time. i went through with this with several of the tenants. i found out that two things happened and an awning fell over on an upper deck and the tenants were out there cooking and things they weren't supposed to be doing. i think this is a realistic
1:26 am
timeframe and have a permit again, you have a copy that goes through 2014 >> thank you very much for allowing me to address you. >> thank you. any public comment? >> i have a question of staff. does this stairs and desk services the second means of egress? >> can be used but they would be unsafe to do so. so are you saying their life safety issue and if you are then what are we - there's a time limit >> the city attorney can talk to you and this is a second
1:27 am
means of egress if you address that from a standpoint of giving the property owner then you have to address the life safety issue of the san francisco building code. although staffs recommendation is for o no more time be given >> if the board finds it a life safety issue but work has to be commenced in thirty days and finished quickly. >> thank you. >> there a motion? >> can i ask a clarifying question. so the department is asking for the subsidy of cost attached to
1:28 am
that? >> sometimes they have it in this case there's a lot of activity that may not catch up to the hearing but assessment of costs is a part of the motion i would make here i'll make the motion to uphold the staffs remedies and hold in awe baungs so long as it's in compliance and it's completed within 90 days and up - costs will be xhurd and however we phrase that. >> i second it. >> and the assessment of costs
1:29 am
will be attached - not attached but charged. >> the motion is to uphold the order of abatement and hold it in awe abundance for 90 days. there's a motion >> assuming the work will be done in '90 days. >> so we - and completes within 90 days and assess costs. >> the order is to state that the work must begin within thirty days and completed in '90 days and uphold the assessment of costs? correct >> someone will call the
1:30 am
question? >> okay. on the motion we'll do a role call vote (calling names) the motion carries unanimously. case item number 2 case 6775481 ministry the appellant action requested by appellant the appellant has requested that to 6 additional months